Reinhold Kainhofer <reinh...@kainhofer.com> writes: > Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 18:02:56 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Anyway, here is how I would do this: Chords are much more common than >> tremolos, so changing notation for the latter seems like the better >> choice. > > Oh, really???
Yup. > In all the classical orchestra scores that I have looked at (and I > have looked at a lot), I have not seen a single chord, but there are > several tremolo shorthand notations (to save space, i.e. instead of > g8[ g g g] g[ g g g] , they write g2:8 g:8) in about every > violin/viola/cello score. Well, in my violin solo sonatas and partitas by Bach, there is not a single tremolo shorthand, but quite a lot of chords. Granted, the particular stacking/inversion is rarely suitable for chord notation entry. > It really depends on the type of music you are using. In pop music, > chords are more common, but in classical music, tremolo notation is > just as essential! That question is sort of academical. The important thing is that yes, colon notation is already being used in Lilypond music, and so integrating chord colon notation into music as is requires a downward-incompatible syntax change and conversion rules. The ultimate goal of my proposal is to obliterate \chordmode completely. As an intermediate step, it would still be present in its current form as an alternative. So there are basically two ways forward for getting non-ambiguous tremolo and chord syntax: a) change the syntax of tremolos. I already proposed c4/8 which looks nice enough in my opinion. It still requires an incompatible syntax change. b) change the syntax of chords when used used in-score. How? One could write them uppercase, but I think that is a bad idea since C is the German name for c, actually. And accordion notation uses lowercase letters for chords, uppercase for bass notes. Having to input this just the other way round is not going to be particularly legible. There are not that many characters left. Writing c/m for c minor would be conceivable, but the chord inversion c/m/g or even c//g does not get more readable. I really can't think of a good syntax for b), so my personal favorite remains solution a). Which is an actual improvement over c4:8 I should rather think, but then I might be biased. But I am aware that having a downward compatible proposal would greatly improve the chances of this becoming reality in a mostly painless manner, so I am open to suggestions. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
